9-11 & The Port of Seattle

In the almost two and half years since September 11, 2001 many aspects of life in our community have remained unchanged. We still come together as neighbors in the myriad ways which make Magnolia an oasis – and our home. Our lifestyles though, if not standards of living, have been impacted - most directly (some might say) by the multi-trillion dollar hit to the economy caused by the attacks. Meanwhile, those who choose to can completely ignore that America has gone to war. Try doing that in 1942. The largest overall deployment of fighting forces, equipment and munitions since the 1940’s is out there for the foreseeable. Whether you feel the war is a peripatetic obscenity, well, let’s leave that for another time, okay? In what has been the least-jingoistic mobilization of nation-building preemption since Kosovo, we have found ourselves in World War III. Against an enemy which, in this toxically overwrought age of political correctness, is only reluctantly discussed.

Meanwhile, in a most pleasant neighborhood along the north edge of Elliott Bay, the events of 9-11 instantly created an abiding awareness of its industrial uber-neighbor, the Port of Seattle. For me it started just after they cleared the airspace, when a Stealth Fighter patrolled up and down Puget Sound, shattering the rare quiet overhead with indignant asperity - and a thought as pertinacious as the stinging anger left by a slap in the face: this is serious, and this is war. What the hell is coming in to this country by ship, I fretted, if they could do that with planes? In the many time since 9-11 when I have volunteered in any of several capacities: block watch coordinator, SDART (community disaster teams), and (most recently) even doorbelling for the school levy – folks have time and again expressed concern about the port terminals “next door” to our neighborhood. “What are they doing about terrorism at the port?” This refrain comes up again and again.

As the years go by, I have heard about proactive plans, such as through a local emergency planning committee, to work closely (with our community in particular), to develop “Shelter-in-Place” guidelines. Getting indoors (remember duct tape and plastic sheeting?) is far and away the best means to limit your exposure to harm from a terrorist incident at the Port of Seattle. Chances are great that harm from a radiological “dirty bomb” or chemical/biological agent, hidden in a shipboard container set to explode, could be significantly minimized if all of us had those sealed rooms that Tom Ridge made the mistake of mentioning off-the-cuff at that infamous press conference. The trick is in the knowing when to shelter, and how well you are prepared to do so.

We in Magnolia are the “down winders” who would be potentially most at risk, from many of the most virulent forms of terrorist attack on our port, given the typical southerly wind patterns in this part of our region. This is the second part of the crux comment I have heard time and again from average citizens. It is the root cause of their heightened anxiety. Yet where have our leaders been in providing us with implementation of cutting-edge technology such as the LINC program to trigger civil defense response and shelter-in-place orders within seconds of a chemical, biological or nuclear plume emanating from a port terminal? Where are the public education programs which must accompany a civil defense plan of this type? Where is even the discussion of these issues by our leaders? This is not a once-and-done, we are doing our best, and it is all the Administration’s fault kind of political football. It has been two and half years since 9-11, we are fighting a war with billionaire terrorists who despise our values, our political system, our civilization and the freedom it offers. Nobody thinks, even for a moment, that they won’t be back. We need LINC sniffers and civil defense alert mechanisms on Magnolia Bluff.

Our local community club has members assigned to the Port’s Neighbor’s Advisory Committee (NAC). They have been looking out for us with regard to the threatening onslaught of school buses parking in the North Bay Uplands (having invoked the never-used dispute resolution mechanism with regard to that issue), but where are they on port security - addressing our concerns about terrorism? The NAC makes an annual report to the Port Commissioners, why not include the people they represent, and put us “in the loop” – finally getting around to the security issue? Not that I’m down on our neighbor volunteers, mind you, because to look at the City of Seattle’s Emergency Preparedness plan, there is a whole lot they can do – only after the fact of a terrorist incident. Maybe NAC members have read the report like I have, and are cynically resigned to the after the fact nature of our emergency planning in Seattle. Actually, I doubt they are, because they are good people – and we need to empower them to do what NAC does best. Namely: sink in the teeth and don’t let go. It is well past time to hector on this subject.

Maybe our NAC needs to know what the issues are with regard to port security. Might I suggest a briefing from our state’s junior Senator, particularly with regard to the year she has now spent as a member of the Commerce Committee? No doubt Maria Cantwell can give them a run-down on the issues, given that her new committee has made port security a top priority. No doubt she has a bill ready to go in the hopper to provide us (along with West Seattle and North Tacoma), as the closest residential neighborhoods to major port terminals in the nation – with what they need (LINC technology and civil defense alert systems) to realistically respond to an attack.
Or perhaps they can turn to our senior Senator for help. Patty Murray has made Bush-bashing over port security a prominent feature of her public persona. Murray proudly points to her heavy-handed smack-down of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge over funding of a whole laundry list of what are, unfortunately, largely responsive, rather than preventative measures. It is tragic that we do not begin to gain a sense of her vision of homeland security; particularly with regard to how it might be brought to bear in prevention of terrorist attacks at Port of Seattle marine cargo terminals. From her own website she asserts her preeminence in these matters:
“Senator Murray serves on the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee. She helps write the budget for - and has oversight of - the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, the Customs Service, and other entities responsible for port security. She is the highest ranking Democrat on the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee where she wrote the $60 billion bill that funds the Department of Transportation. Murray has become the leading voice in Congress to improve port security.”
That sounds like someone who should be working with the White House, not bashing it. That sounds like someone who has the ability to enunciate a vision, and make it happen. That sounds like someone who could, if she wanted to, arrange a tour of our port with W himself. Why would anyone do that, you ask? Maybe because part of politics is doing what you have to do, even in a political year, to do what’s right for your citizens. Senator Murray, ask yourself, what would Scoop and Maggie do?

Unfortunately, we have not even arrived at the major point at issue with this problem. That is, we have had plenty of emergency response planning around here. We need implementation of responsive programs. But more than that, we need to do what any risk manager will tell you are the most cost-effective ways to limit the expenses associated with disaster. We need to come to grips with the unfortunate fact that billions need to be spent, right here on Elliott Bay, in order to limit the exposure of a trillion dollar disaster. We need to come to grips with the enormity of emergency prevention planning measures. The most effective way to mitigate a disaster is to prevent it. So let’s talk about that with regard to the Port of Seattle on Elliott Bay, next to a neighborhood called Magnolia.

Next time you get a chance, take one hour, and become a tourist in your own town. Go to the observation level of the Columbia Tower – and look down at the Port of Seattle - straight down. You need to look down because the marine container terminals of our port are in such close proximity to the densely-packed glass towers of downtown Seattle. That is an enticing target, and any terrorist can see it. All of the other big-time major ports in the United States, particularly the ones like us here is Seattle (and thus with a higher probability of terrorist targeting potential) like Long Beach, California and Elizabeth, New Jersey – are at an enormous remove from densely packed office towers and residential neighborhoods. They are in sprawling industrial mega-zones. Even the Port of Tacoma presents a less-enticing terrorist target. Our port, with a beautiful downtown district and lovely neighborhoods ringing it, presents the mother-of-all profiles to an enemy planning the most bang for the buck. Seattle is in the cross-hairs, and we must wake up our leaders to that fact.

So, what could be done in terms of prevention of a terrorist attack on our doorstep? It would cost billions to bring about the curtailment of marine container port operations on Elliott Bay. Those costs would be offset in some significant part by shifting uses of marine port terminal land and pier aprons – it would allow equally productive urban growth potential, in other words. But it would still be expensive. From a risk management perspective, however, it is an easy decision because of the trillion dollar vulnerability to our economy based on business disruption in our downtown. Disruption that any of the “triple threat” hazards of chemical-biological-nuclear would cause. Our regional economy would be potentially benefited, however, by a consolidation of marine container operations to the Port of Tacoma. Particularly if such a move were accompanied by infrastructure improvement to our road and rail links to such a “mega-port” to boost efficiencies - and in the end it could be highly beneficial. The greatest downside to such a proposal is the entropy of our State Legislature – as an entire revamp of our public port laws gearing it toward regionalism would be required. In effect, a “Port of Puget Sound” with regionally-elected public oversight would be required. Let’s see, would the thoroughly entrenched “system” we now have work for this in the name of risk prevention, or will they tell you “don’t worry, be happy”?

Oh, and just out of curiosity, where does Jim McDermott fit in with regard to any influence whatsoever on this debate? Is he willing to spend one penny of “political capital” on legislation to provide better protection for us Port of Seattle “down winders”? I realize that this is not offered with the usual unguent sweetness he is used to being addressed with, but (without any antagonistic opprobrium) I have to ask him a favor: Before the next time you “go off” in loyal attack-dog mode against the “Administration in Occupation of the White House” - may we hope you ponder that there is much work to be done, and that you can actually have a positive, even irenic, role for once? Start by getting the president out here to understand the nature of the proximity of our marine port terminals to our downtown and neighborhoods. Before action there must be understanding. With understanding there can be agreement. With agreement we can do anything. Let’s roll.